Print this post Print this post

Demoskrieg & Diaskrieg:
The Two Great Truths of the Jewish Question

2,729 words

Physicist Niels Bohr is given a great line in the excellent biographical graphic novel Suspended in Language by Jim Ottaviani and Leland Purvis. While walking with a young Werner Heisenberg in 1924, he tells his colleague:

A great truth is a statement that is as true as its opposite . . . as opposed to a triviality, whose opposite is false. It is our job as scientists to reduce great truths to trivialities.

I feel haunted by this statement whenever I consider a certain thorny aspect of the Jewish Question. As White Nationalists, should we consider the Jewish diaspora and Israel as different heads on the same beast and envision our troubles with them as (to coin a term) Demoskrieg, that is, long-term evolutionary warfare between peoples or races? Or, rather, should we view them as separate beasts and engage more with the diaspora, since it poses a more direct threat to white interests? To coin another term, this would be Diaskrieg, or short-term evolutionary competition between different diasporas. Note that these tactics are peacetime tactics which would become irrelevant during a hot war. These describe ways in which genetically disparate populations must interact when they have competing interests and mutual enmity accrued throughout the course of history. Demoskrieg does not require that the populations be in close proximity within free societies, while Diaskrieg does. In the case of white gentiles versus Jews, both methods entail whites resisting and ultimately removing the Jewish influence in white homelands while differing solely on their treatment of Israel.

In terms of tactics, this dichotomy can be boiled down to the following:

Demoskrieg: Engaging Jews with the same weapons with which they engage whites. In this case, “weapons” refers to the reliable Jewish tactic of using blacks, browns, and aboriginals as weapons against white civilization. It also refers to its more recent flipside: the white gentile tactic of using the Palestinians as an excuse to condemn Israel.

Diaskrieg: Focusing on reversing the influence of diaspora Jews (more specifically, liberal diaspora Jews, or LDJs, as I have referred to them before) and deliberately limiting attacks on Israel, thereby giving Jews a convenient out should whites ever convince them to beat a retreat from traditionally white homelands.

These are two opposite tactics – and they both ring of truth. Further, when employed simultaneously, they work against each other, and so cannot be used in tandem. Indeed, extreme Demoskrieg harms Israel, thereby making it less likely that Israel will be a viable option for Jews who wish to return there. On the other hand, extreme Diaskrieg is the less truculent tactic, thereby allowing Jews to wage greater Demoskrieg upon whites. These tactics are both effective and mutually exclusive, which is why I suspect that behind each one lies not just truth, but a Great Truth, as described by Bohr. Their opposites are each other, and neither is trivial. Therefore, White Nationalists are beset with a pair of conflicting Great Truths when dealing with the Jewish Question.

It thus makes sense that White Nationalists, if they wish to organize in any macro sense, should probably decide on one of these tactics and stick with it. This, of course, would require an assessment of the pros and cons of Demoskrieg and Diaskrieg. This essay hopes to get the ball rolling, and in no way promises to be the final word.


The most extreme form of Demoskrieg is demographic genocide – that is, making conditions so culturally hostile to the enemy that, over time, they either assimilate genetically with other races or simply fail to adequately reproduce. Effective ways to do this include discrediting the enemy’s religion and traditions, encouraging dysgenic behavior among the enemy (such as abortion and promiscuity), and imposing multiracialism upon them. The first destroys meaningful connections the enemy has with his past, the very building blocks of racial and ethnic identity. The second limits the enemy’s ability to produce future generations. And the third provides the enemy easy access to other races as a way to encourage miscegenation and to suppress any natural feelings of supremacy in their own homelands.

Anyone familiar with Kevin MacDonald’s Culture of Critique will recognize the above as the Demoskrieg that diaspora Jews have been waging against their white gentile hosts for well over a century now. However, it can be argued that white European gentiles also waged a kind of Demoskrieg against the Jewish diaspora throughout the nineteenth century. During this time and in various locations, whites pressured Jews to convert to Christianity and eschew stereotypical Jewish behavior and professions; to become more like gentiles, effectively. Whether this was an attempt at demographic genocide or merely benevolent assimilation is moot given that it would have caused the number of synagogues in Europe to dwindle in either case, a scenario intolerable to any self-identifying Jew back then.

Let’s assume, however, that MacDonald is correct in positing that influential Jews have been waging Demoskrieg against white populations for many years now. Let’s also assume that Israel as its own nationalistic entity apart from the Jewish diaspora has, at the very least, said nothing when Jews use the Star of David or Israel’s name in their Demoskrieg against whites. Given these two points, why shouldn’t white gentiles wage Demoskrieg in return against their Jewish tormentors? Why wouldn’t anyone bring anything less than a gun to a gunfight? Wouldn’t that be the safest bet for survival?

In the Demoskrieg model, Jewish influence, whether in New York or Tel Aviv, is considered a threat in the same way that most Jews feel threatened by white ethnocentrism, whether it is in Iceland or Utah. Therefore, it doesn’t matter where you strike the enemy, as long as you strike him. Such a mindset makes sense. Do Jews ever let geography stop them from subverting white gentile populations? Of course, both Left-wing Jews and conservative neocon Jews energetically promote non-white immigration and racial diversity in traditionally white homelands. Israel seems to as well, albeit to a lesser extent. Given the blatant double standard of these people, and how almost none of them push for the same demographic changes in Israel, the benefits of harshly condemning or punishing Israel whenever it or its Jewish citizens mistreat its Arab or non-Jewish minorities become clear. It hurts them and forces them to spend resources defensively, rather than offensively. Enough Demoskrieg against the Jews and the tables could be turned in the greater culture wars.

Despite this, there are drawbacks to whites waging Demoskrieg against the Jews. For one, it’s the Jews’ preferred fight, and I wonder if whites would be as good at it as they are. Jews, it seems, are the greatest propagandists in history. They have real energy for it, regardless of whether they are lying or telling the truth. That’s what being innately clannish and having a high average verbal IQ can do for you. So the question then becomes, is waging total Demoskrieg a battle whites can win? Given how so many whites have a weakness for altruism and xenophilia (two very Christian traits, I might add), I have my doubts. But who knows?

Another drawback is that Demoskrieg is frankly dishonest. It’s dishonest when Jews pretend to care about non-whites while promoting globalism and open borders, when all they really want is to make gentile nations safer and more lucrative for themselves. It’s also dishonest when White Nationalists make noise about the oppressed Palestinians when they would just as soon deport these same Palestinians from traditional white homelands if they could.

There’s also the question that rarely gets asked on the Jew-woke Dissident Right: Do the Israelis treat Arabs better than the Arabs treat Arabs? I would suspect that they do, given the high level of poverty, violence, war, oppression, and misogyny that exists, and has always existed, in the Arab world. If this is so, then shouldn’t we complain about Arab nations more than we complain about Israel? Further, if the Arabs are so violent and disruptive to begin with, why have truck with them at all? It’s not like the Arabs have excessive love for white people. What do whites have to gain by taking up their cause when we have troubles of our own?

Here is a thought experiment which might make this black pill less black: It can be argued that the Chinese government oppresses the Falun Gong, the Tibetans, and the Muslim Uighurs. Of these groups, how many do people on the Dissident Right mention as often as they do the Palestinians? The answer, of course, is zero. Why? Because the Chinese aren’t Jews. If there is a more elegant answer than that, I’d like to hear it.

I have a personal distaste for Demoskrieg, it’s true. How the Israelis treat the Palestinians is not terribly high on my list of concerns (especially when the South African blacks these days treat white people far worse). So when prominent people on the Dissident Right speak out against Israeli human rights abuses while remaining silent on the abuses the Palestinians commit, I tend to zone out. Such proclamations strike me as a bit insincere. On the other hand, the Jews themselves are being insincere when they complain about slavery, Jim Crow, and “white supremacy” when all they really want is to wreck white civilization one black person at a time. Insincerity is the name of the game if you wish to play Demoskrieg. So maybe calling out Israel over the Palestinians is the right thing to do after all?


Despite having several things going for it, Diaskrieg is the riskier strategy since it employs a lighter touch regarding the Jewish Question. Its underlying assumption is that White Nationalists and Jewish nationalists can ultimately coexist on the planet – provided they mostly stay within the bounds of their respective nations. This shifts the axis of struggle from gentile versus Jew, as in the Demoskrieg model, to ethnonationalism versus globalism. Since both models adhere to canonical White Nationalist tenets, yet promote mutually exclusive modes of behavior, this shift must be considered as comprehensively and with as much impartiality as possible.

If history vindicates the Demoskrieg model, then Diaskrieg will end in disaster for whites. This will resemble how Tsar Nicholas II and his government tragically underestimated the intent and ability of the Bolsheviks and other Leftist agitators on the eve of the Russian Revolution. One side was performing a measured police action, while the other was waging total revolutionary war. I have to admit, imagining a future three hundred years hence with hardly any white people left in Western Europe and North America, while tens of millions of Jews still dance and sing “Hava Nagila” in Israel, terrifies me. Demoskrieg, despite its flaws, might very well be the best way of preventing this from happening. But it worries me because it must suppress truth in order to be effective. Truth has a way of bubbling to the surface of history eventually and punishing those who ignore it.

The main attraction of Diaskrieg for me is its philosophical consistency. A serious ethnonationalist must not be opposed to ethnonationalism anywhere. This means that the Jews have a right to call the shots in Israel in the same way that the Japanese have a right to call the shots in Japan, and the Norwegians have a right to call the shots in Norway, etcetera. A White Nationalist simply claims the same rights for white people in North America. Greg Johnson makes this point often in The White Nationalist Manifesto. There is also a rhetorical value to Diaskrieg in that it forces the enemies of whites to be consistent if they wish to condemn White Nationalism. If White Nationalism is immoral, then Jewish nationalism must be as well . . . unless one takes the hypocritical position of being a Jewish supremacist. Escaping a logical chokehold like that would take a lot of unseemly wriggling, indeed.

A big proponent of this system is Vox Day. Despite being a race realist who has issues with White Nationalism, Day speaks often about how the “real battle is nationalism versus global imperialism,” as he put it recently. Day will not hesitate to criticize Jews qua Jews if they support globalism. At the same time, he staunchly supports Israeli nationalists as brothers in arms on the Dissident Right. Certainly, Diaskrieg has its own kinks to work out – strident ethnic nationalism may have played critical roles in many wars of the past, for example – but its ideological rigor, as expressed by Vox Day, coupled with its recent successes in nationalistic Eastern Europe, make it hard to refute.

Further, there is the obvious benefit of allowing Israel to thrive so that when the inevitable Götterdämmerung occurs between Right and Left – complete with flying Valkyries, rings of power, and fat ladies singing – diaspora Jews will have a convenient place to go. They already get a frosty welcome on the Dissident (and very white) Right and are currently being squeezed out of an increasingly anti-white Left which views them as white (or, worse, as Jews). When the middle finally fails to hold, as it is bound to do in any polarized society, the majority of diaspora Jews will realize that they have no permanent home outside of Israel. If Israel is in any shape to take them, they will go there. If not, then the diaspora will fight that much harder to keep their place among the gentiles – which is what we as White Nationalists certainly don’t want.

There is precedence for this. Again, on the eve of the Russian Revolution, many Russian Jews looked down upon Zionist Jews as traitors who wished to shirk their duties in the Revolution. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn has a scene depicting this in Chapter 47 of his recently-translated historical novel, March 1917 (Node III, Part 1 of his opus The Red Wheel). Further, it was no secret that the Bolsheviks held the Zionists in extremely low esteem. Leon Trotsky once referred to the founder of Zionism, Theodore Herzl, as a “repulsive figure” and a “shameless adventurer,” according to Louis Rapoport in his 1990 work, Stalin’s War Against the Jews. Remember, this was several decades prior to the formation of Israel. Zionism was still a pipe dream in 1917.

This raises an interesting question: Would the Jews of Russia have fallen so wholeheartedly for the false god of Communism had there been a thriving Jewish ethnostate beckoning to them? They clearly weren’t happy with the Tsar and not terribly comfortable with the Russian hoi polloi. I would argue that yes, the presence of Israel would have enticed far more Jews out of Russia and away from Communism. For proof, I offer how Israel did just that during the Khrushchev and Brezhnev years. According to Rapoport, anti-Semitism made a comeback in the Soviet Union after Stalin’s death. Despite being milder than the anti-Semitism of the Tsarist period, it gave rise to the “refusenik” phenomenon and caused hundreds of thousands of Jews to emigrate, most heading to Israel.

Imagine hundreds of thousands of Jews emigrating out of the United States . . . all because they have a place which will take them.

It seems that Demoskrieg is attractive because it promises White Nationalists complete victory over the Jews. At the same time, however, it helps justify the Jewish Demoskrieg against white people, and thereby risks complete defeat. Taken to its logical extreme, it locks the doors of the Octagon, so to speak, allowing only the victor to come out alive. On the other hand, Diaskrieg leaves those Octagon doors unlocked, potentially easing the crisis by shifting the emphasis onto universal ethnonationalism rather than a more bellicose “ethnonationalism-for-me-and-not-for-thee” attitude. This plan is certainly elegant, but will work only if elements on both sides actively push for a peaceful resolution to our current troubles. I know there are elements on the White Nationalist side who do . . . because I am one of them. Whether a critical mass of Jews feels the same way remains to be seen.

Demoskrieg and Diaskrieg exemplify two Great Truths as described by Niels Bohr. They are opposites of each other, and they are not trivial. I hope that this essay has demonstrated how confounding it is to reduce one or both of these Truths to trivialities – and how important it is as well. Of course, we could wait for history to do this for us. By that point, however, it might be too late.

Spencer J. Quinn is a frequent contributor to Counter-Currents and the author of the novel White Like You.


  1. Franklin Ryckaert
    Posted January 14, 2019 at 11:47 am | Permalink

    Diaskrieg is the most promising. It is the most logic and it is consistent with universal ethno-nationalism. If ethno-nationalism is for us, why then not also for Jews ? Strange as it may seem, but there is some sympathy for this idea in Israel itself. Israelis don’t support the idea of flooding Europe with non-Whites and they are prepared to form alliances with ethno-nationalists in Europe who have expressed sympathy with Israel. See Netanyahu’s friendly attitude towards Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban and both’s dislike of Jewish globalist George Soros. Israelis want all Jews of the world to emigrate to Israel, if only the West keeps supporting their ethno-state. That is a reasonable deal that can be made. Trying to destroy the Jews no matter what, only will make them trying to destroy us. And they are better at that.

    • Punished Rodent
      Posted January 14, 2019 at 8:35 pm | Permalink

      ‘ If ethno-nationalism is for us, why then not also for Jews ?’

      Because Jews and Whites are not analogues of one another. They are not the same.

      Because the Jewish way of life is parasitic and not self sustaining. Israel currently could not survive without a massive subvention of White wealth both declared and undeclared. How many of the Israelis who you think are sympathetic to Whites would tomorrow morning volunteer to not accept the tens of billions in aid given to Israel by Whites? There are currently more Jews in the state of New York than there are in the whole of Israel. Israelis who can do not hesitate to procure foreign second passports from countries that ‘persecuted’ their grandparents if they have the opportunity. Israel was supposed to turn the Jews into Zionist 19th century nationalist Europeans. In this it was similar to communism which promised to solve the Jewish question by abolishing classes (and therefore the issue of Jews exploiting the mass of common Europeans). Communism failed and so has Zionism. The Jews (of all stripes) do not want to be an ordinary nation and feel themselves not bound by international standards in regards to Israel. Israel is nothing more than a little crusader state which does nothing but try to aggravate its neighbours (see the Yinon plan, Israel refusing to believe that Iran has abandoned the bomb even though Mossad admits it has). Israel would also not be able to accommodate all of the Jews in the world (both the official born of a Jewish mother kind and the unofficial patrilineal/crypto Jewish population).

      Years ago the British Broadcasting corporation tried to air a historical documentary (not political just historical) that in one section pointed out that the Jewish diaspora was a voluntary affair- it predated the Roman expulsion. This documentary was promptly spiked because this is of course true- Jews have always wanted to live amongst others and exploit them. The Arab Jews did not want to leave north Africa and Arabia but did so only after the Ashkenazim instituted a false flag terror operation (see the lavon affair) and antagonised the Arab world deliberately. Many Arab Jews are still bitter about this today. As someone so adroitly pointed out if Jews were being oppressed by Europeans why after their expulsions did they petition to come back in again? For example a mere 17 years after the expulsion of Jews from England which is painted today as terribly traumatic experience, why were Jews petitioning to come back? Because there was good money to be made exploiting others in other people’s homelands. Jews are not indigenous to Europe.

      Why would Europeans- easily the most capable of all peoples to govern and provide for themselves as well as having the most accomplished civilisation (not the oldest that’s China) be the same as a people who have never had a civilisation and who have prospered not but manly building themselves up but by profiting from the weakness of other peoples?

      Jews and White people are not the same. You are drawing a equivalence that does not exist

      The same people who tell us that blacks really are different from us and cannot be civilised do not hesitate to collapse the boundaries between two people who could not be more different. I have pointed this out here before and gotten nothing but mountains of senseless verbiage and flack for it but for those who are first exploring this issue my message is this:

      Jews and White people are not the same.

      As William Pierce said Jews are as different from Whites as the Chinese are.

      Anyway just playing the gadfly.

      • Franklin Ryckaert
        Posted January 15, 2019 at 4:24 am | Permalink

        No, Jews and Whites are not the same. I know that, but it is not necessary for peoples to “be the same” in order to have an ethno-state. I am dreaming of a mass expulsion of Jews from the West and they should have a place to go. That place is Israel. The idea that Israel is a “parasitic state” only surviving on American aid or German reparations-for-the-Holocaust is an exaggeration. Israel’s annual budget for 2019 is $116 billion. Israel gets yearly $3,8 billion in aid from the US, mainly to be spend in buying weapons from that same US. Israel’s economy is thriving. See the Wikipedia article Economy of Israel, from which this excerpt :

        “The economy of Israel is advanced by global standards.[17][18] Israel ranks within the top 20 nations in the world on the latest report of the UN’s Human Development Index, which places it in the category of “Very Highly Developed”, allowing the country to enjoy a higher standard of living than many other Western countries.

        Also the idea that Israel is too small to contain all Jews of the world is not right. Such an Israel would be densely populated no doubt, but no less functional than say Hong Kong or Singapore. Jews are typical city-dwellers anyway.

        A WN government need not resort to a bloody pogrom to have the Jews move to Israel. Publicly denouncing them, removing them from all seats of power and then “encouraging” them to move would be enough for these hyper-paranoids. Further “aid” to Israel should not be financial or military but only political, trying to have the Arabs accept its existence, like Egypt and Jordan already have done. As for Israel trying to “rule the world”, yes that is their fantasy (see Ben Gurion’s dream and also read Isaiah : 60 and 61), but you need more than just a fantasy to accomplish that. We could trade with Israel but be cautious not to let them “help” us with security matters, or buy electronics from them in which they might have installed back doors for spying, or medicines that might contain poison or conduct financial transactions that might contain cheating. In that controlled way Israel would function as a kind of ethnic ghetto that would reduce Jewish destructiveness. Attacking Jews for their “hypocrisy” of being against building a wall on the southern border of the US, while approving of Israel doing the same (David Duke’s tactic), may seem clever, but a far more clever tactic would be praising Israel for its building a wall and then advocating for doing the same in the US (Ann Coulter’s tactic). Jews cannot possibly accuse you of “anti-Semitism” if you praise their actions and want to emulate them. Nor could they accuse you of “racism” if Israel does the same. That would be equivalent of accusing Israel of “racism”.

        In the mean time Jewish destructiveness in the Diaspora throughout history should be publicly criticized and adduced as a reason for repatriation to Israel.

    • Rob Bottom
      Posted January 14, 2019 at 10:19 pm | Permalink

      Israelis don’t support the idea of flooding Europe with non-Whites

      Frank, Israel has been sending its unwanted African migrants to white countries in Europe and abroad for the past couple of years (at least). Besides, we’ve got rabbis on video explicitly supporting the Muslim takeover of Europe as a good thing for the Jews because it fulfills one messianic prophecy or other. On top of that, if Israelis gave a damn about white people why would they engage in the white slave trade (sex trafficking), or sell our military technology and secrets to China? Israel doesn’t give a damn about us.

      […] and they are prepared to form alliances with ethno-nationalists in Europe who have expressed sympathy with Israel. See Netanyahu’s friendly attitude towards Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban and both’s dislike of Jewish globalist George Soros.

      Where are the tangible results of these rare, irrelevant, and ultimately unproductive “alliances” you speak of? Why would you give Bibi (or any other Israeli PM) the benefit of the doubt? Oh, he can arrive in America and speak in front of congress uninvited when it concerns Israeli interests, but does little to convince them to support any of Trump’s proposed policies. Do you see any meaningful changes in how Hungary and Poland are being treated by the Jewish-owned media, or the EU? If so please let me know, last I checked the Israelis were demanding the Poles accept blame for the holocaust.

      Israelis want all Jews of the world to emigrate to Israel, if only the West keeps supporting their ethno-state. That is a reasonable deal that can be made.

      Sounds like extortion to me. Besides, the diaspora adamantly refuses to leave the comfort and security of the West for Israel. Why would they? And any attempt to forcibly repatriate them would be met with howls of antisemitism. The reality is that Jews are increasingly fleeing Europe for Israel but only when they feel directly threatened by the presence of Muslims, which requires we take in large numbers of them. How is that a reasonable deal for us?

      • Hollywicker Man
        Posted January 15, 2019 at 1:03 am | Permalink

        Yes, I’m super unconvinced that Netanyahu’s petty rivalry with George Soros serves as even the scantest of evidence of a dramatic divide between Zionism/Israel and the accelerating globalist agenda.

        Just because Netanyahu’s son Yair Hun posts irreverent anti-Soros memes on Facebook, are WNs really willing to give Bibi a giant pass on good faith? That’s silly. It’s like Batman contemplating a neutral, rational side of The Joker because he squabbled with Penguin.

        How quickly even we forget that semi-former diaspora globalist Hollywood kingpin Harvey Weinstein was being advised by a former Mossad director, and had retained the Mossad intel contractors at Black Cube, to surveil and intimidate white actresses in the US. Seems likely Weinstein also used Black Cube for shady political gains as well. Imo, WNs didn’t exploit this scoop, this rare glimpse at undeniable coziness b/t elite anti-2A Leftist diaspora with Israel neocons. And this is exactly the type of shocking mainstream zio-scandal that should grow our numbers.

        As for strategy: Trump gives us another example. By making a bigly mainstream deal of moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, he dares Israel and Bibi to publicly demand more US assistance against Assad and Iran, dares them to reveal their true colors. And right now, Bibi has turned out Bolton to do his shameless war-drum bidding, which has also caught many white normie Republicans’ surprise. Trump seems to have a strategy in using Israel’s narcissism and whorish love of “symbolic prophetic headlines” against itself. We can learn from this. Vanity is their weakness.

  2. BroncoColorado
    Posted January 14, 2019 at 1:08 pm | Permalink

    Sun Tzu made the observation that unless a general is intent on annihilation of an enemy army, the general should take care that his opponent has a means of escape, not to regroup and pose a threat of counter-attack, but as a means of face-saving retreat. It can be argued that Hitler followed a similar tactic at Dunkirk, and look where it got him.
    For us the twin policies of Demoskrieg and Diaskrieg are a bit like being stuck between a rock and a hard place. It is unwise for us to place undue reliance on either option as our sole response to Jewish depredation. Keep the enemy off balance by choosing either tactic as the conditions dictate, we can’t always afford the luxury of philosophical consistency, especially since our enemy is the past master of sophistry and contradiction.
    Our present situation is weak and precarious so for the time being we should husband our meager resources and concentrate on discrediting the fake left-right faces of the Jewish power structure. Perhaps we can sow internal dissent within their ranks, or better still encourage others to do the opposition and fighting if necessary. Israel and Iran are on an existential collision course, a major conflict over mastery of the Mid East will reshuffle the deck, perhaps to our benefit.

  3. Hollywicker Man
    Posted January 14, 2019 at 5:34 pm | Permalink

    I disagree that White Nationalism and “Jewish Nationalism,” via Israel the Jewish State, are the same, because I subscribe to the belief that Israel has designs on domineering the entire world. Proof of this lies in David Ben Gurion’s 1962 endgame prediction given to LOOK Magazine: Israel’s Supreme Court will dictate a “benevolent” global law using a global police force, while the US will be reduced to a socialist melting pot of “workers.” Ben Gurion, arguably a founding father of Israel comparable to George Washington, foresaw this occurring by…the 1980s. Chutzpah.

    Israel also has betrayed the US countless times, as a proclaimed “ally,” most severely through deceiving JFK about its nuclear program, Mossad and Netanyahu’s shady complicity in or non-disclosure of 9/11, and especially the latter’s war crimes in lying about WMDs to drag us into their MENA conquest of expansion. There’s also their Samson Option. Meanwhile, compare how the US has treated Israel, and how our public education system emphasizes Jewish oppression.

    I do agree that WNs should not sink to the lows of deception and subversion in countering the diaspora. We then risk becoming what we despise. Our potential numbers vastly outnumber theirs, their strategies of warfare are due to numbers. This has caused whites to sink into false comfort, and partly why we lost any hegemony over US media and entertainment. Israel is an elite white ethnostate supported by supremacist and religio dogma, and simply because it’s a “white” ethnostate doesn’t mean we should support it on principle to justifies our own. Hitler and Stalin could not work it out. The Bolshevik Revolution is a nightmarish example as well, as Quinn notes.

    Vocally awakening our numbers to the hypocrisy of Israel’s Wall when the diaspora viciously blocks our own border protection, and to segregated roads in Israel versus blanket MSM cries of white racism: these are effective, honest punches of sunlight upon the conflict. Once we can openly criticize the diaspora and Israel, teens and parents of the same feather, without fear of economic and social ruin, the rest will fall into place. Trump quoting Pat Buchanan this week is indeed a small but promising step. The anger is certainly spreading. But another 9/11 would again redirect and expendour collective anger for another decade, and we’d risk ruin. They slyly know that, too, of course, too well.

  4. frederick jürgen
    Posted January 15, 2019 at 2:16 am | Permalink

    You write:

    “. If White Nationalism is immoral, then Jewish nationalism must be as well . . . unless one takes the hypocritical position of being a Jewish supremacist.”

    There is NOTHING whatsoever hypocritical in Jewish supremacism, because it just does NOT follow the axiomata of modernity. Your ethnonationalist conception seems to derive from an egalitarianism of the ethnoi (or whatever the plural of ethnos is) and supposing that Jewish supremacists accept this egalitarianism is baseless and wrong. It is not only in the Talmud but in every page of the Tanakh.

    The problem that I see with “whites” and the Jewish question is that whites care too much about Jews and way too little about “whites”. White ethnoi should start caring about themselves first and then consider their relations to other people, as is healthy and as is normal and paradoxically, as the Jews do.

    Jews could not care less whether you are black, yellow or white, for them, you are goy.

  5. Peter
    Posted January 15, 2019 at 3:52 am | Permalink

    “This means that the Jews have a right to call the shots in Israel in the same way that the Japanese have a right to call the shots in Japan”

    I see no reason to be so generous. Israel was created by stealing land from Palestinians that had lived there for hundreds, if not a thousand years or longer and it’s not akin to Europeans settling in Africa or the Americas where there were no cities and the peoples there were hopelessly backwards. Palestine had towns and they were not so backwards. Also, the Jews claim to Palestine is based on religion, in which they claim they lived there 2,000 years ago. Can you imagine any other group trying that and getting away with it? I can’t. Also, I don’t want to speak for White Nationalists but I don’t view criticizing Israel for its abuse of Palestinians as an “excuse” and I see no reason for not criticizing them.

    If Israel was a white gentile country I think it might (or should) be more difficult to formulate a policy that was fair to the rulers and the ruled, but there was no such difficulty when Germany began a policy of encouraging Jews to leave their country. A policy of hate propaganda and lies, far worse than the current treatment of Trump pushed the world into war. It was the Jews which were mostly responsible for this, but maybe that’s why I don’t see a reason to not hold a foe to a higher standard than an ally. These are just my thoughts.

    Also, in view of how the Jews reacted when Germany and others began pressuring Jews to leave their countries, I think you can expect a similar reaction from them if this policy is pursued again. There had better be an agreement among the nations that they won’t go to war on behalf of the Jews or we could have another WW II.

  6. Voryn Illidari
    Posted January 15, 2019 at 3:57 am | Permalink

    “This plan is certainly elegant, but will work only if elements on both sides actively push for a peaceful resolution to our current troubles.”

    That’s a very big IF. Why should the Jews feel any need to go along with this?

  7. Thomas
    Posted January 15, 2019 at 5:27 am | Permalink

    Great article and primer for discussion, as usual.

    Perhaps an America governed by whites for our own group interests could coexist respectfully with Israel, but current arrangements make that impossible. The cultural degeneration and financial domination inflicted upon us by the Jewish diaspora are intolerable, and they are coupled with the intrigues of nationalists in the Jewish lobby to ensure the security and well being of Israel. I don’t see how Diaskrieg is a tenable position until we let ourselves off the Israeli leash.

    If that day ever comes, perhaps a new arrangement can be made with Israel founded on respect of strength and not one-sided exploitation. Then perhaps Israel may be the landing pad for diaspora Jews who no longer feel cozy and welcome in the countries they’ve nearly ruined. Truly though, isn’t there a score to settle no matter what?

    Americans will not be free until they’re rid of Jewish interests, and once they are, will there be either a need or a desire to play nice with our former exploiters and abusers? Given what whites would need to believe and the power they’d need to possess to achieve the former, I don’t think you’ll find any interest in the latter.

  8. Mark
    Posted January 15, 2019 at 6:56 am | Permalink

    The logical answer is demoskrieg. The Jews don’t worry about where whites will live when we are dispossessed. As for Israel, if white nationalists come to power in the west in some future scenario, they’ll have no power allocating some new piece of land should it become necessary to deport Jews en masse. Right now the Jews want both a multicultural, anti-white west and a powerful, nationalist Israel. It makes sense to heighten and expose this contradiction as much as possible. Let them choose one or the other. Jewish domination of the political system results in a pro-Jewish viewpoint; we should make common cause with leftists when possible to do the same.

  9. Mark
    Posted January 15, 2019 at 7:12 am | Permalink

    It would make sense to switch to diaskrieg, perhaps from a position of strength, only as part of a quiet pro quo in which “nationalist” Jews assist white nationalists in exchange for support of Israel. Also, the Zionist jews are arguably not true nationalists but supremacists who implement a shady internationalism using subterfuge. Even if the 9/11 conspiracy theories (regarding is as an Israeli job) are false, the “dancing Israelis” represent a truer picture, IMO, of what they think of whites. To assume Zionists are natural allies is to be a “cucked” right wing version of white leftists who are utterly oblivious to their “fellow whites.”

  10. Benjamin
    Posted January 15, 2019 at 10:46 am | Permalink

    From a purely pragmatic POV, demoskreig isn’t a good strategy to combat Jewry.

    Jews have had from the 1960s to present day to wage their slow war against us, whereas we only have a single generation or so to save the West.

    Demoskreig is also an a-symmetric stretedgy that the numerically inferior Jews use against Whites. The “home team” (I.e., us) can’t use the same strategy as the rebel guerillias (I.e., Jews)— think: Taliban & VietCong vs. US forces.

    TL;DR: demoskreig would take far to long to take full effect, and that’s assuming it worked at all

  11. Archie Bunker
    Posted January 15, 2019 at 1:11 pm | Permalink

    Instinctively I lean more towards diaskrieg due to my predilection of searching for universally applicable modes of conduct. However, I have slowly warmed to non-universal ideas and actions, especially in light of the fact that this sort of asymmetrical warfare is how our enemies deal with us. Fighting demoskrieg with demoskrieg if you will.

    I would say that diaskrieg is the route to take for a number of reasons, foremost among them being that it is hyper-focused on a specific enemy: LDJs as opposed to “the Jews”. This helps lessen (but does not completely negate) the calls of racism, xenophobia, etc. because the target is not encompassing of an entire racial/ethic group (think “Muslim terrorists” as opposed to “all Muslims”). Additionally, diaskrieg allows for an alliance to be made with ethnocentric Jews who are already critical of the behavior of their LDJ brethren, and may be sympathetic to the cause.

    Food for thought.

  12. Orange Man Bad
    Posted January 15, 2019 at 6:15 pm | Permalink

    “So the question then becomes, is waging total Demoskrieg a battle whites can win?”

    This strikes me as something quite odd to ask. I suspect from reading the comments that both you and your readers have missed a critical point here: it is not necessary for whites to win the conflict outright but merely to start it in the first place. A strong minority of whites together with a large number of browns in an increasingly browning America might very well do the trick. This latter demographic is already showing signs of restlessness on the subject (witness the two Palestinian BDS supporters elected to congress in the most recent election).

    Of the two options you present, this is by far the more realistic one. Not only does it stand a chance of actually hurting the opposition, it could also serve as a rallying cry for your tribe – a unifying cause. People are emotional by nature and the best way to rally supporters is to make them think they are righteous in some fashion. This is why the SNP foolishly embraces immigration in Scotland. Their supporters need to feel morally superior to the English in some fashion, even if the policy they chose to display that superiority is ridiculous; everyone wants to be considered a “good person.” Therefore, supporting BDS – even if hypocritical or dishonest – could be embraced on the right as it provides a means for whites to feel morally superior to their opposition.

    The former option also disregards the kind of sneaky politics that whites have shown themselves to fare poorly in. The average white voter is pretty stupid and not very clannish. An emotionally charged policy that just so happens to stick it to the opposition seems to be the more appealing of the two options considering the audience you are trying to reach.

    And as you state, it is dishonest. But who cares? Your enemy’s primary response to your dishonesty would be their own dishonesty, so why is this immoral to consider? In fact, whatever response they use to counter this argument would ring hollow and probably fall on deaf ears as a result. I can’t imagine they’d have any kind of honest, and effective, retort to it.

    As food for thought, I’ll leave you with a relevant historical observation regarding Japanese and American naval engagements during World War Two. Ultimately, the US came out on top. Naively, one might think that superior US resources won the day. Not quite, at least not for the first few years of the war. At the end of the day, the Japanese were ultimately hamstrung by needlessly complicated battle plans that often required many things to go right; often enough, something would go wrong with one element that affected multiple downstream elements, leading to failure time and again. The US, in contrast, chose more simplistic and direct strategies – find the enemy and shoot them, no need for complicated misdirection efforts and fleet movements. With fewer moving parts, there was less room for failure, so the US carried the day more often than not. The first option you presented strikes me as being somewhat similar to the wartime US strategy. It is simple and does not require needlessly complicated machinations, any one of which could spoil the rest.

    “As for strategy: Trump gives us another example. By making a bigly mainstream deal of moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, he dares Israel and Bibi to publicly demand more US assistance against Assad and Iran, dares them to reveal their true colors. And right now, Bibi has turned out Bolton to do his shameless war-drum bidding, which has also caught many white normie Republicans’ surprise. Trump seems to have a strategy in using Israel’s narcissism and whorish love of “symbolic prophetic headlines” against itself. We can learn from this. Vanity is their weakness.”

    I think it is more likely that Trump was attempting to buy off American Jews for good media coverage by being extra nice to Israel. He was wrong as he badly miscalculated Jewish anti-gentilism. Trump, as “the guy” representing their despised ethnic rivals, is persona non grata to them. Being pro-Israel is something they take for granted, almost as if it were a qualification for office, so being a little bit more pro-Israel doesn’t make much difference to them.

    • Jay
      Posted January 20, 2019 at 6:14 am | Permalink

      It seems there’s an appealing idea that floats around WN quarters that Zionist Jews are the natural allies of white nationalists, and that we can either 1) Get on the Jews’ “good side” by supporting Israel or 2) Somehow divide and conquer the Jews, or at least gain meaningful support from prominent Zionist-leaning Jews

      As Trump’s embassy moves show, this never seems to pan out. If anything, they simply hate you more the more you “cuck” for Israel.

  13. Spencer J. Quinn
    Posted January 16, 2019 at 6:26 am | Permalink


    I am following this thread very closely, but I don’t have much more to add. When I feel swayed by one tactic, someone posts something and I feel pulled in the opposite direction. I’m not sure at this point what the right answer is, but I hope by posing the question within such a theoretical framework we can more easily arrive at it over time. Thank you.

  14. Jay
    Posted January 20, 2019 at 5:10 am | Permalink

    I’m not really sure I follow the logic here. The author presents a dichotomy of two choices:
    1. Deconstruct Jewish power in the west, do not attack Israel
    2. Use the “same weapons” the Jews use and target their reproductive rates.
    The author then prefers the first, on account of the fact that strategy 2 is their “preferred” battlefield. This could use further clarification. For either scenario to work, we would have to first gain power over them, but this means the final showdown will have to already happen before either 1 or 2. There are a bunch of assumptions, including the notion that the deciding factor in the conflict will likely be whether their “enthusiasm” for fighting is lessened by the psychological comfort of Israel, that seem a little sketchy.

  15. Jay
    Posted January 20, 2019 at 5:43 am | Permalink

    In further conclusion, we need a more comprehensive mental model of what is the metaphorical chessboard “we” and “they” are on, what pieces each side has, and the possible moves each side can take.

    Right now the only thing online dissidents can do is spread ideas and “redpill” normies. Well, maybe a little more, roughly the same in real life. In order maximize the chance that this could end up changing the balance of power, it necessarily makes sense to use ALL of the memes/ideas that can cause the maximum impact on public opinion. So no, we should absolutely not in any way create a “safe space” for Israel instead of spreading awareness of their crimes.

    Ethical considerations preventing us from targerting Israel might come into play, if we were having some kind of “just war,” where each side had some sort of rules of engagement and they were obeying a similar directive regarding a white homeland. But such is not the case.

  16. Jay
    Posted January 20, 2019 at 6:03 am | Permalink

    Oh and one more thing. How is it “dishonest” to somehow support the Palestinian cause? If the premise is that we have some sort of duty to uphold universal ethnonationalism globally, you mean to conclude, if I understand correctly, that there’s some further obligation we have in relation to an oppressed minority residing in one ethnostate. But this raises a number of questions in regards to how this moral framework exactly operates.

    The main issue I see is not dishonesty or hypocrisy, or even anything that intuitively questionable, but rather a lack of some kind of static universalism, in whether it’s okay to work in our own interests when choosing how we relate to various other groups. In this case we would be providing special assistance to the Palestinians merely because it helps us and hurts our enemy. But I’m unsure what’s especially dishonest, hypocritical, or reprehensible about this.

    • Spencer J. Quinn
      Posted January 22, 2019 at 6:31 am | Permalink


      Well, the way you put it, it is very honest. But that’s not how most people put it. When the SPLC complains about “Islamophobia” they will never say that they are using Muslim immigrants to reduce white influence in America. At the same time, who on the dissident right will openly admit that they are using the Palestinians to hurt the Jews and that if anyone else were oppressing the Palestinians they wouldn’t care? Very few. If there were, they would be just as upset when Arabs oppress Arabs or when the Chinese oppress Tibetans et al. But they aren’t.

      I am not sold on either strategy. True, my gut tells my diaskrieg is the way to go, but my gut has been wrong in the past. Also, demoskrieg may be dishonest but it is not necessarily reprehensible. When your enemies adhere to no rules and are in a position to kill you, why constrain yourself with rules?

      Also, I don’t think we have the duty to uphold universal ethnonationalism. We need to concern ourselves with *our* ethnonationalism and stay out of the way of other ethnonationalists as long as they stay out of our way.

      Thanks for your comments.

  17. Posted January 22, 2019 at 5:06 pm | Permalink

    It’s also dishonest when White Nationalists make noise about the oppressed Palestinians when they would just as soon deport these same Palestinians from traditional white homelands if they could.

    I don’t think that’s fair or accurate.

    It is right and normal to feel some sympathy for a genuinely oppressed population. That we don’t want the oppressed population to live with us doesn’t mean that our sympathy is false and therefore dishonest.

    Here’s a graphic from one of Spencer Quinn’s SF links:

    It is not weird or dishonest to feel sympathy for the Arabs living in the dwindling bits of green, especially when we know that the same people who are making the bits of green steadily decrease in size are also active in own dispossession. Many Jews nowadays are eager to boast about it.

    It’s true enough that many of us feel a special sympathy for Palestinians because their enemies are Jews. To my mind, that’s a normal and honest emotion.

    I’ll add that the same Jewish propaganda machinery that makes Palestinians seem like monsters does the same to us.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  • Our Titles

    White Identity Politics

    Here’s the Thing

    Trevor Lynch: Part Four of the Trilogy

    Graduate School with Heidegger

    It’s Okay to Be White


    The Enemy of Europe

    The World in Flames

    The White Nationalist Manifesto

    From Plato to Postmodernism

    The Gizmo

    Return of the Son of Trevor Lynch's CENSORED Guide to the Movies

    Toward a New Nationalism

    The Smut Book

    The Alternative Right

    My Nationalist Pony

    Dark Right: Batman Viewed From the Right

    The Philatelist

    Novel Folklore

    Confessions of an Anti-Feminist

    East and West

    Though We Be Dead, Yet Our Day Will Come

    White Like You

    The Homo and the Negro, Second Edition

    Numinous Machines

    Venus and Her Thugs


    North American New Right, vol. 2

    You Asked For It

    More Artists of the Right

    Extremists: Studies in Metapolitics


    The Importance of James Bond

    In Defense of Prejudice

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles


    The Node

    The New Austerities

    Morning Crafts

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Gold in the Furnace